I haven’t watched it but you’ll probably enjoy this
Major tax cuts on their way!
My favorite: “He had this highly un-American upbringing.”
He sure wasn’t brought up attending baseball games, eating apple pie and saying the Pledge of Allegiance.
1 Like
Trump reinstates a Pro-Life policy
Was this ever posted?
In Trumperica a criminal will not have the privilege of cover fire from the mediocre mulatto
@Mufasa I’ve found another reason for you to complain.
Trump isn’t just tweeting he’s now Snapchatting too
I know that you rarely, if ever, actually read past the headline of things you post - as long as the headline agrees with your worldview, you’re all in, no questions asked - but, as usual, the article you posted is somewhat more nuanced than the headline. You can find the full paper here:
3 Likes
Is there something incorrect about the conclusion in the article? You have a history of pointing out I didn’t spend hours analyzing a study I posted but never actually explain why the conclusion drawn is misleading if at all.
The paper found there was racial bias in basically everything; except, shootings. We’ve discussed it at least 3 times already.
1 Like
Actually, I have explained things like this before, like the time I had to lecture you about what “oversampling” means in surveys. Classic Trump deflection; dishonest ActivitiesGuy never tells the real truth! Sad!
Anyways…
I don’t know if “incorrect” is the word I would use; but it’s certainly much more complex than STUDY SHOWS NO RACIAL BIAS AMONG POLICE. A couple things to chew on:
- The data in the study is hardly a representative national sample. The meat of the analysis is based on data from the NYC Stop and Frisk program, along with a few police departments in California, Florida, and Texas. They do manage to represent a couple different areas, but I’m hardly calling that a definitive representation of the entire country’s police force(s).
Nevertheless, this is a reality of doing research. It’s hard to collect data on a very large scale; this isn’t to say the author is wrong, only that it is an acknowledged limitation that the findings may not be generalizable to the entire nation.
- The data in the study did, in fact, suggest that minorities were more likely to be involved in police interactions that included any use of force. Here is a direct quote:
" In the raw data, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to have an interaction with police which involves any use of force."
…with a more detailed description a little later…
"Interestingly, as the intensity of force increases (e.g. handcuffing civilians without arrest, drawing or pointing a weapon, or using pepper spray or a baton), the probability that any civilian
is subjected to such treatment is small, but the racial difference remains surprisingly constant.
For instance, 0.26 percent of interactions between police and civilians involve an officer drawing a weapon; 0.02 percent involve using a baton. These are rare events. Yet, the results indicate that they are significantly more rare for whites than blacks. In the raw data, blacks are 21.3 percent more likely to be involved in an interaction with police in which at least a weapon is drawn than whites and the difference is statistically significant."
…and a little later on…
Taken together, we argue that the results are most consistent with, but in no way proof of, taste-based discrimination among police officers who face convex costs of excessive use of force. Yet, the data does more to provide a more compelling case that there is no discrimination in officer-involved shootings than it does to illuminate the reasons behind racial differences in non-lethal uses of force.
The point is, papers like this are complicated. It’s never as simple as merely “PAPER SHOWS POLICE NOT BIASED.” The results showed no significant differences in shootings, but did show significant differences in other uses of force. What does that mean? I’m not really sure.
This isn’t to suggest that the researcher did anything wrong; collecting data and doing research is damned hard, and in the primary paper he acknowledged the strengths and limitations of his work, as all researchers typically do. See, here’s another direct quote from the primary paper:
Our results have several important caveats. First, all but one dataset was provided by a select group of police departments. It is possible that these departments only supplied the data because they are either enlightened or were not concerned about what the analysis would reveal. In essence, this is equivalent to analyzing labor market discrimination on a set of firms willing to supply a researcher with their Human Resources data! There may be important selection in who was willing to share their data
Problem is, discussion of such complexities almost never makes it into the newsy version of the article; it’s much more catchy to write a clickbait headline and be done with it than explain the study’s strengths and limitations, and why its conclusions may or may not tell the full story.
Try reading the articles you post sometime. You might learn something.
5 Likes
#AlternativeFacts
3 Likes
Every study in this area will have caveats it’s intrinsic to the subject matter. If you have a problem with any study that’s not completely bulletproof, You will never be able to draw any conclusions.
What exactly have you brought to the discussion other than the obvious that grey area exists? Not much
This kind of stuff is why Trump won.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/ad4c27f5-d710-35b1-b9aa-a942523db197/ss_eric-garner’s-widow-to-stay.html
3 Likes
Trump’s reportedly keeping Comey as the head of the FBI…
That should be the point- you can’t draw any real conclusions out of them.
Studies like these may be a good starting point for further discussion and research. They are not good studies to draw any real, strong conclusions from.
Every person is entitled to determining the standard of evidence they require before believing something. If you maintain an especially high standard, that’s fine. Personally, I recognize there are limitations in the tools available to us to discern the world around us. For me, if the study is reasonably designed, has no major red flags, I don’t see a problem in drawing a conclusion from the study. If counter evidence comes along to debunk my current opinion I will update my position.
BTW for the folks with heavenly high standards, don’t ever look into the studies used to back health, fitness and diet advice you’ll be in for a rude awakening!
Haha oh the irony.
1 Like
Hey I started off as a liberal-socialist-atheist. Looking at me now!
1 Like
